Constitutional Amendments need changing? WTF!!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Some nice conservative Americans in this picture.

Looks like Byrd and Wallace holding the ropes - imagine that.

In fairness, I specifically addressed that, and put it in its historical context, in my post #21.

[Nightingale 0]

Honestly, I'm okay with changing the 14th amendment. It was a reconstruction amendment largely intended to guarantee citizenship to children of freed slaves, which is no longer an issue.

Right now, we have a situation where pregnant women are jumping the border to get citizenship for their children, flying in on a "vacation" in order to get their child dual citizenship that would exempt them from mandatory military service in their home country, among other problems.

I wouldn't mind revising the amendment to say that "if one of your natural parents is a citizen, you are a citizen. If you are adopted by a citizen before age 18, you are a citizen. If one of your parents becomes citizens before you are age 18, you are a citizen. If one of your parents becomes a citizen after you are age 18, you may immigrate and begin the process to become a citizen yourself." Other countries function fine with a citizenship by family affiliation, and that seems okay to me.

[hwt 0]

Quote

There seems to be a groundswell of left wing nitwittery around the idea that there is something terribly wrong with the US Constitution, specifcally the 2nd amendment.

+1

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Honestly, I'm okay with changing the 14th amendment. It was a reconstruction amendment largely intended to guarantee citizenship to children of freed slaves, which is no longer an issue.

Wasn't it designed to unass the southern states from continuing slavery? The E.P. and teh 13th prohibited it, but the southerners said that was a fed document and as long as tehy didn't cross state lines or make it federal they didn't have to comply.

Quote

Right now, we have a situation where pregnant women are jumping the border to get citizenship for their children, flying in on a "vacation" in order to get their child dual citizenship that would exempt them from mandatory military service in their home country, among other problems.

I wouldn't mind revising the amendment to say that "if one of your natural parents is a citizen, you are a citizen. If you are adopted by a citizen before age 18, you are a citizen. If one of your parents becomes citizens before you are age 18, you are a citizen. If one of your parents becomes a citizen after you are age 18, you may immigrate and begin the process to become a citizen yourself." Other countries function fine with a citizenship by family affiliation, and that seems okay to me.

That *might* be ok as long as it didn't infringe on other rights. But the 14th is still extremely viable as it ensures equal protection in far more areas than immigration.

[JSBIRD 1]

Quote

There seems to be a groundswell of right wing nitwittery around the idea that there is something terribly wrong with the US Constitution, specifcally the 14th amendment.

Oh, you thought they meant that 14th, when they really meant the other 14th.

This link describes the difference between the two, and the problem with the current 14th.

http://www.deprogram.us/enter/

It's presented in the style of The Matrix, so it's entertaining, as well as eye opening.

HTH

359

"Now I've settled down,
in a quiet little town,
and forgot about everything"